U.S. Navy Receives First Industry Built Railgun Prototype

Re:Where's Gordon Freeman when you need him? by SJHillman · 2012-02-08 04:04 · Score: 1

Why? Are they firing anomalous materials from the railgun?

Pop Up by mdsolar · 2012-02-08 04:06 · Score: 1

There is an annoying popup on TFA. Reload to temporarily defeat it.

Re:Pop Up by osu-neko · 2012-02-08 04:12 · Score: 5, Funny

There is an annoying popup on TFA. Reload to temporarily defeat it.
Hmm, I don't see any popup. I suspect your NoScript settings are set to something insane, like "not installed"...

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Re:Pop Up by Nadaka · 2012-02-08 04:47 · Score: 1

Or you can use firebug to inspect and delete the annoying popup. Its what I do when I find a site that I really need to use, but is broken without javascript and more broken with javascript.

In my mind. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 04:07 · Score: 1, Funny

There's only one railgun, and her name is Misaka Mikoto.

Re:In my mind. by xmorg · 2012-02-08 04:13 · Score: 1

crap, now i gotta waste hours of dwarf fortress time, watching another pointless anime!
Re:In my mind. by Pope · 2012-02-08 04:40 · Score: 1

Heh. :) I started watched Index after having seen Railgun, and as you say, it's just not nearly as interesting. Even the 4 episodes or so with the side characters came off well.

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.

Wow by koan · 2012-02-08 04:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

Can you imagine the sound this weapon makes when a projectile exits at 5000 MPH, that alone would terrify the enemy.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."

Re:Wow by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2012-02-08 04:12 · Score: 1

The enemy would be terrified by the noise, but I suspect wouldn't risk much from the gun, as a projectile exiting the barrel (or whatever passes for a barrel in a railgun) at 5000 mph instantly vaporizes when it hits the atmosphere.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:Wow by vlm · 2012-02-08 04:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

At mach one zillion and hundreds of KM away, they won't hear it until long after the dust settles from impact.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 04:26 · Score: 5, Funny

The enemy would be terrified by the noise, but I suspect wouldn't risk much from the gun, as a projectile exiting the barrel (or whatever passes for a barrel in a railgun) at 5000 mph instantly vaporizes when it hits the atmosphere.
You're thinking of Santa.
Re:Wow by mdsolar · 2012-02-08 04:28 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually no. The projectile survives. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BfU-wMwL2U
Re:Wow by Tim+C · 2012-02-08 04:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Perhaps, but not the enemy that it was aimed at - the projectile will get there before the sound does.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 04:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

I work at the facility in question. The sound is comparable (but louder) to a 5 inch shell being fired on the range.
It is quite capable of startling someone not expecting it from about a km away.
Re:Wow by Baloroth · 2012-02-08 05:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well, TFA says the projectile travels at around 5,000mph leaving the barrel, and has ~32 megajoules of energy, so using KE=1/2mv^2 and some conversion, you get about 13kg (5000mph=2235m/s, [32e6]*2/[2235^2]=m=12.8)

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:Wow by PPH · 2012-02-08 05:20 · Score: 5, Informative

If you've heard it, it means you've survived.
The projectile will arrive before the sound.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Wow by sycodon · 2012-02-08 05:26 · Score: 1

No need to lead those little pirate boats anymore.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 05:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

You're assuming 33mJ is the energy making it to the projectile, while it could be the raw power dumped into the system which needs heat losses removed ;-)
Re:Wow by filthpickle · 2012-02-08 07:19 · Score: 1

Well, at that muzzle velocity I am pretty sure that to aim accurately at a mobile target, at least any target that moves at seagoing speeds, that you aim directly at it.

The tech that allows the missles to hit their targets is probably far more complicated than the tech needed to get a railgun to hit it's targets.
Re:Wow by WindBourne · 2012-02-08 07:44 · Score: 1

Ships on the ocean will move up and down according to the waves. That is pretty easy for a computer to calculate esp. when you have sat or plane visual. Where you would have difficulty would be hitting floating targets close to shore where you have waves in and out causing up-down issues. But this should be able to take out incoming missiles, planes, etc as well.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Wow by Captain+Hook · 2012-02-08 07:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm still unclear on how the rail gun is supposed to take accurate aim on a mobile target (another ship).
Assuming you are shooting at 80 miles, the projectile is moving at 5000 mph. Flight time is about 58 seconds. Not many large ships can radically alter course in that time to avoid the shot.

Also, bear in mind that line of sight at sea level +30 meters is about 13 miles. So a target ship without the ability to see beyond the horizon (either Airborne Radar or Satellite) only has 9 seconds from when the slugs appears above the horizon to impact, and thats assuming the radar picks it up the moment it's above the horizon.

The US already has missile technology which does a very good job.
Missiles can be shot down or guidance interfered with.

There is also an issue with missiles and shells being filled with explosives which if detonated within your ship at the very least significantly damages if not out right sinks it.

Railguns are shooting a solid slug of metal. There is no propellant to be ignited, it's intrinsically safe for the firing ship to handle. The slugs are also far more compact than the missiles or shells because of the lack of propellant so a warship can leave port carrying far more ammo which means less resupply at sea is needed.

--
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
Re:Wow by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-02-08 08:01 · Score: 1

Wow, who would have thought of that? It's not like naval battles - ships shooting at each other - never happened... Having a rail gun actually makes it a lot EASIER because the target will move a lot less between the time you shoot and the time of impact.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Wow by Paracelcus · 2012-02-08 08:55 · Score: 2

The projectile will be made of a material with enough heat tolerance to survive (in fact the heat is part of the effect). And the enemy will be dead before the sound get's to them!
I want a hand carried version (BFG9000)!

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Re:Wow by Em+Adespoton · 2012-02-08 10:10 · Score: 1

The other issue is that rail slugs cost a LOT less to manufacture, and you don't have to worry about duds (just misses).
Of course, I'd hate to be involved in a friendly fire incident... one of these could likely punch through most standard maritime objects without even noticeably slowing. Use around populated areas would be a nightmare to coordinate.
Re:Wow by X0563511 · 2012-02-08 10:48 · Score: 1

The platform knows how it's moving, and the gun is fixed (for now? I'd imagine getting it to work is harder than getting it on a gimbal). It's trivial for the computers to go 'hot' and wait for just the right moment to fire. The targeting system would give consent to fire, and the motion compensation system would wait for the thing to point in the right direction before sending the signal to act. If action was required to make this happen (eg make a slow turn starboard) this requirement could be communicated and acted on. (this eliminates the rotational aspect, for pitch, i'd imagine it would be much easier to put the thing on an adjustable slope than to allow it to pivot like a turret)
As others have said, the other vessel has (practically) all of 10 seconds to move out of the way. Not much time at all.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Wow by clampolo · 2012-02-08 11:55 · Score: 3

Hi. I live a km away from the facility in question. Please stop conducting your tests at 3am
Re:Wow by cavreader · 2012-02-08 15:49 · Score: 1

The rail gun would be a great anti-missile system if it can provide a high rate of fire. It all depends on how long it takes to build up the necessary energy to fire the gun. Some early prototypes required a substantial amount of time to re-charge before firing a second time. More efficient capacitor technology would be required to provide an acceptable rate of fire or depending on the size of the weapon system they could have more than one per ship to increase the rate of fire. They used radar guided anti-air guns at the end of WW2. Today they are certainly capable of detecting incoming projectiles and aiming the weapon accurately. They could destroy an incoming projectile with the rail gun and use the existing GPS enabled weapons to destroy the launch sites. According to the article this weapon system has also been relatively cheap to develop when compared against the cost of a F-22 or a M1 Abrams tank.
Re:Wow by currently_awake · 2012-02-08 17:18 · Score: 1

At that speed the travel time would be short enough that you could just aim directly and ignore wave motion. The bigger issue is this thing would have such a flat ballistic trajectory that it couldn't hit anything over the horizon (about 25 miles).
Re:Wow by currently_awake · 2012-02-08 17:24 · Score: 1

You have a tradeoff between weight/volume of munitions and weight/volume of fuel for the generators. Generally the fast guns win at short range, but missiles at longer ranges.
Re:Wow by Captain+Hook · 2012-02-08 18:21 · Score: 1

fuel isn't an issue on a nuclear ship.

--
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
Re:Wow by cavreader · 2012-02-08 18:59 · Score: 1

I have a feeling that long range missiles will be rendered practically useless with the advancements in identifying incoming missiles and destroying them. The anti-missile technology has under gone substantial advancements since the Patriot system was rolled out in the first Iraq war. The detection systems and kill vehicles have steadily improved over the years. The latest anti-missile system on aircraft carriers are not only accurate but they also have Mach 5 speed. The biggest weakness is that the current anti-missile defense systems can be overwhelmed by a large number of incoming targets.
The nice thing about the rail gun development is that the energy related systems needed to operate such a weapon can be utilized in a number of non-miltary related systems.
Re:Wow by Ihmhi · 2012-02-08 22:57 · Score: 1

Hi, I love 80 km away from the facility in question. Please repair the hole you punched in my roof.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:Wow by tehcyder · 2012-02-08 23:35 · Score: 1

Can you imagine the sound this weapon makes when a projectile exits at 5000 MPH, that alone would terrify the enemy.
Except that the enemy is 200 miles away...

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Wow by cavreader · 2012-02-10 07:04 · Score: 1

This weapon system would probably be deployed on a non-nuclear powered battle group destroyer to start with. The accompanying battle group is tasked with providing protection and support to the carriers. The carriers are also already pretty well defended today by their layered defense net.
Re:Wow by arisvega · 2012-02-12 03:52 · Score: 1

Can you imagine the sound this weapon makes [..] that alone would terrify the enemy.
a) if you terrify someone that makes you a terrorist, so careful how you handle your PR there, and
b) the projectile travels supersonically so, no, "the enemy" cannot be terrified by hearing it, because the projectile will get there before the sound it makes.
How ON EARTH did your comment get "+5 interesting" ?

--
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
Re:Wow by arisvega · 2012-02-12 03:57 · Score: 1

Well, [..] (5000mph=2235m/s, [32e6]*2/[2235^2]=m=12.8)
It seems that typically it is less than half that much, energy lost in heat, rail deforming and whatnot. Nicely applied first principles on your post, though.

--
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
Re:Wow by Baloroth · 2012-02-12 06:45 · Score: 1

I wasn't entirely sure if they were measuring the final energy output of the projectile or the energy input into the system. I guessed the output since that seemed more useful as a measurement (plus it made the math a lot easier), but I don't know what TFA is using. 13kg is probably a bit heavy, so you are probably correct that the output is less than half due to energy loss.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton

Re:Where's Gordon Freeman when you need him? by theillien · 2012-02-08 04:08 · Score: 1

No, but he'll know how to beat the aliens when they arrive. And they surely will now that we have technology like this.

WTF submitter?! by Thud457 · 2012-02-08 04:09 · Score: 2

gizmag, really?!!
Couldn't you have at least found the story at Janes?!!

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:WTF submitter?! by Mashiki · 2012-02-08 05:43 · Score: 3, Informative

Sadly most people these days don't know what Janes is. Probably because most people don't follow either the military or gun culture on /. sad but true. Anyway, I keep wondering whether or not railgun tech will be what brings the battleship back into use. I can see scaled down versions of this on cruisers. But if you want to hammer something down from way off shore and cheaply, I don't think anything else beside a large chunk of floating iron will do.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:WTF submitter?! by BisexualPuppy · 2012-02-08 06:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Probably because most people don't follow either the military or gun culture on /. sad but true.

There are so many things I can learn with passion, and killing people is not one of them. Is that sad ?
Re:WTF submitter?! by Abreu · 2012-02-08 06:24 · Score: 1

Probably because most people don't follow either the military or gun culture on /. sad but true.
There are so many things I can learn with passion, and killing people is not one of them. Is that sad ?
Well said. Quoted for lack of mod points.

--
No sig for the moment.
Re:WTF submitter?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 06:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

There are so many things I can learn with passion, and killing people is not one of them. Is that sad ?
Remember that the next time you're commenting on "assault" rifles and the rest of military or gun culture. You actively chose not to learn based on your own narrow minded belief system.
Re:WTF submitter?! by Fnord666 · 2012-02-08 07:04 · Score: 1

There are so many things I can learn with passion, and killing people is not one of them. Is that sad ?
Everyone has to have a hobby of one sort or another.

--
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Re:WTF submitter?! by Fnord666 · 2012-02-08 07:12 · Score: 1

Anyway, I keep wondering whether or not railgun tech will be what brings the battleship back into use.
To heck with battleships, when do I get a man portable sniper version? Imagine 2km shots with the scope parallel to the bore!

--
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Re:WTF submitter?! by x0 · 2012-02-08 07:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

There are so many things I can learn with passion, and killing people is not one of them. Is that sad ?
What is sad is that you equate gun ownership with killing people. I have quite a few guns, and not once have I threatened anyone. I have, however, made plenty of holes in paper and made steel targets 'ding'.

How about taking that passion and learning the difference between lawful gun ownership and violent criminal activities.

I suspect that your passion for leaning stops when your worldview is threatened...

m

--
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
Re:WTF submitter?! by TempestRose · 2012-02-08 08:49 · Score: 1

Guns aren't only about killing people. They're also about killing tasty meat popsicles that haven't yet made it to my table. On a more serious note, there are still quite a lot of people who enjoy shooting just for target practice and competitions. So yes, it's sad. And so is your attitude.
Re:WTF submitter?! by couchslug · 2012-02-08 08:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

No. You can delegate it and pretend the world runs on rainbows and unicorns.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:WTF submitter?! by x0 · 2012-02-08 09:23 · Score: 2

I'm guessing the US Navy isn't funding railgun research in order to make steel targets go "ding".

Try reading the thread you're replying to before raging at your keyboard.
RIF, the comment was directed at:

Probably because most people don't follow either the military or gun culture on /. sad but true.

There are so many things I can learn with passion, and killing people is not one of them. Is that sad ?
Regarding rage, what rage? Defend your argument, or the post I was replying to. I neither attacked or denigrated the commenter I was replying to. So, who's raging?

m

--
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
Re:WTF submitter?! by Mashiki · 2012-02-08 10:42 · Score: 2

There are so many things I can learn with passion, and killing people is not one of them. Is that sad ?
Military and gun culture equate killing people. Well... If I have a gun, I don't need it to kill people or even need to use it to kill people. I can use it as a hobby, for enjoyment, for survival and providing for myself. As for military culture. Janes in itself, is probably one of the best resources on military tech and culture, current and past. Myself I study historical battles and the technology of the day. Both are central to understanding the know-how and the why-how of why things happen in the field of even the near past.
I really guess that people on /. are out of touch with reality, yourself included. I'm not sure if I should feel pity over the fact that you believe that both of those things equal killing, or that you were modded up for it.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:WTF submitter?! by X0563511 · 2012-02-08 10:54 · Score: 1

Some of us enjoy the aspect of getting everything to work together to put a projectile to a target. It just so happens that substituting the target for a person suddenly makes you horrible (hint: shooting at people is bad, not shooting in general)

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:WTF submitter?! by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-08 11:04 · Score: 2

Choose not to learn what, how to kill people?
No, how to properly identify things that kill people.

Why should the poster remember that when commenting on assault rifles etc?
Because most people commenting on assault rifles (or "assault weapons" in general) have no idea what the term actually means. Or whether that even means anything.
Re:WTF submitter?! by m50d · 2012-02-08 11:08 · Score: 1

What is gun culture / military about, if not killing people (or at least animals)? I can appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into handmade guns, but that doesn't seem to be what most gun nuts are about. Being able to aim steadily at a target is an interesting skill in the same way as driving or carpentry (though with less to show for it at the end), but guns are disproportionately popular for that to be what it's about.

--
I am trolling
Re:WTF submitter?! by Em+Adespoton · 2012-02-08 11:38 · Score: 1

I suspect the same responses would fly with s/gun/baseball/. Personally, I don't get passionate about baseball, nor do I expect all slashdotters to do so, nor take offence at those who love/revile the game. Is that sad?
And while I enjoy a bit of target practise, I prefer a long bow (not saying I detest guns, I just don't find them as fun).
Re:WTF submitter?! by bryan1945 · 2012-02-08 13:47 · Score: 1

Alien Cop: "Are you Corbin Bernstein?"
Corbin: "Negative. I am a meat popsicle."

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Re:WTF submitter?! by bryan1945 · 2012-02-08 13:48 · Score: 1

John Ringo's Aldenata series has handheld railguns. Doesn't go into the mechanics/physics. Just letting you know.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Re:WTF submitter?! by Ihmhi · 2012-02-08 23:00 · Score: 1

I honestly wish we had mandatory military conscription for a year or so like a lot of European countries. We used to be a frontier nation where not knowing how to use a gun was unthinkable unless you were a pacifist.
We're in pretty deep shit (the cities, at least) if anything majorly bad ever happens.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:WTF submitter?! by tehcyder · 2012-02-08 23:51 · Score: 1

Railguns don't kill people, people do. Er...

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:WTF submitter?! by tehcyder · 2012-02-09 00:26 · Score: 1

You don't need to be particularly interested in guns to identify a weapon that can kill people: apart from cap guns, they pretty much all can. The details of exactly how much damage they can do to a human body are really rather tedious in their unpleasantness, unless you get off on that sort of thing.

If you shoot as a hobby or profession, that's a different question.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:WTF submitter?! by tehcyder · 2012-02-09 00:44 · Score: 1

The point of target practice is to make you more proficient with your weapon(s) so that you will be more accurate and safe when it comes to using them. The actual uses of guns are limited to (a) hunting and (b) killing people.

If you are a hunter, fine if that's your thing. I'm not a vegetarian, so I can hardly complain about people killing animals, for eating at least. Otherwise, you're left with killing people. Whether that's legitimately in self defence or not, the fact is that having the gun can lead you to killing people with it.

So it is hardly unreasonable to connect gun ownership with killing people, it's not as if the OP was saying that a keen interest in philately means learning how to kill people.. I agree that's not the same thing as equating them: self evidently not every gun owner kills people, or there would be no one left alive in the US at all.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:WTF submitter?! by tehcyder · 2012-02-09 00:51 · Score: 1

Protip: don't criticise American gun culture on slashdot, you will most certainly be downmodded.

It's almost as if their are paid NRA shills here or something.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:WTF submitter?! by tehcyder · 2012-02-09 00:58 · Score: 1

On a more serious note, there are still quite a lot of people who enjoy shooting just for target practice and competitions.
Yes, but you don't use excitingly pornographic assault rifles like Special Forces have for competition shooting, the weapons tend to look like they've been cobbled together from lumps of wood and spindly bits of old pipe.

Anyway if you just want to show you're good at hitting targets why not play darts?

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:WTF submitter?! by tehcyder · 2012-02-09 01:40 · Score: 1

There are three elements to learning how to use a gun.

Learning how it works, how to pull the trigger, keep it clean, aim it and so on.

Practise at shooting so that you are more accurate and more consistent.

Being prepared to use it to kill another human being.

It is the third element that is the only really difficult one.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:WTF submitter?! by x0 · 2012-02-09 01:55 · Score: 1

The point of target practice is to make you more proficient with your weapon(s) so that you will be more accurate and safe when it comes to using them. The actual uses of guns are limited to (a) hunting and (b) killing people.

(c) Target shooting and competition are not actual uses of firearms?

(d) Self defense is always equivalent to killing people?

It is reasonable to connect guns with killing people, at least in the context that spoons make people fat.

m

--
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
Re:WTF submitter?! by d3ac0n · 2012-02-09 02:52 · Score: 1

Cult film quote FAIL.
Actual quote:
Cop: "Are you classified as 'human'?"
Korben Dallas: "Negative, I am a meat popsicle".
Next I suspect you'll be quoting "Droth Vinder" as he says; "I am your Uncle!" to "Luc Solo".
Ugh.

--
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Re:WTF submitter?! by couchslug · 2012-02-09 03:13 · Score: 1

Mandatory national service for the US is a self-destructive idea.
There was a reason we needed LARGE military jails during the Viet Nam War.
An an Air Force NCO (1981-2007), I don't want the average POS off the street running to the AF recruiter because they are scared of conscription to become cannon fodder. It happened before and it sucked. Drug and discpline problems were rife in the old Hollow Force.
Who wants national defense depending on people who resent having the job?
National service would be a resource hog that would not address the need for retaining mid-level technicians and supervisors. It would take money away from force enhancement to sustain a rotating pool of low level troops who would haul ass out the gate after soaking up vital training time.
The volunteer force works well. Let's keep it that way.
A reminder of How Things Really Worked:
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/heinl.html

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:WTF submitter?! by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-09 05:34 · Score: 1

You don't need to be particularly interested in guns to identify a weapon that can kill people: apart from cap guns, they pretty much all can.
The original point, I think, was that people who comment negatively on these kinds of things tend to get their terminology all wrong, and consequently their understanding of things very confused - and it all ends up in the laws, too. The term "assault weapon", as used in AWB, is a famous case in point - to that date, no-one could concisely explain what it actually is, and why those particular set of restrictions have any bearing to it - e.g. what makes a rifle with pistol grip an "assault weapon", and why it is inherently more dangerous compared to, say, a thumbhole stock.

Re:Where's Gordon Freeman when you need him? by BergZ · 2012-02-08 04:09 · Score: 5, Funny

Wasn't he supposed to be in the Test Chamber half an hour ago?

--
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.

Re:Where's Gordon Freeman when you need him? by jeffmeden · 2012-02-08 04:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, it's powered by zero point energy. Until now, there has been no practical application for the technology, but manipulating gravity for the purposes of propelling objects at high rates of speed at your enemies sounds like a winner. Hence, we will need Gordon since he is the only one crazy enough to put one in his hand for testing purposes.

Got Depleted Uranium Slugs? by InsertCleverUsername · 2012-02-08 04:12 · Score: 2

Those Strogg mofos are going to be sorry now!

And it looks bad ass too.

--
Ask me about my sig!

Comments at TFA by mdsolar · 2012-02-08 04:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Some wish that we would put efforts into more peaceful technology. It is worth remembering that the German V2 research became the basis for manned space exploration both in the US and in the Soviet Union. Eventual space cooperation led to better arms reduction treaties. The rail gun may also have eventual launch applications and promote cooperation and peace as well.

Re:Comments at TFA by iamgnat · 2012-02-08 04:50 · Score: 2

Just the minor little inconvenience of those squishy things we call bodies not really caring for the G force generated by such acceleration...
I do agree with you though as I too think there will be practical applications for sending non-compressible items into orbit (or beyond) until we can address the limitations with our squishiness. I'd be interested to see a comparison of the energy requirements of such a launch compared to the current means, from the basics I understand these things take a crap ton of energy to drive them.
Re:Comments at TFA by Viol8 · 2012-02-08 05:05 · Score: 1

I doubt it'll be much use as a launcher anytime soon. You'd have to get up to escape velocity (actually greater due to atmospheric friction) in the length of the barrel unless you have propellants on board the projectile and then you enter all sorts of problems of containment. As for launching astronauts - forget it.
Re:Comments at TFA by Anrego · 2012-02-08 05:12 · Score: 2

I've envisioned a very long rail-gun style launch system .. where the acceleration is gradual enough that you don't end up with liquid organs, but still end up at enough speed to get into orbit.
Disclaimer: I haven't done any math on this, or looked at any practical elements .. it's just a quick thought.
Re:Comments at TFA by mdsolar · 2012-02-08 05:12 · Score: 1

What is important is the amount of energy you need to carry with you. With a rocket, you need to carry your fuel, with a gun, you don't. It may make sense to use a longer rail for human spaceflight. Last I checked, about 60 miles was a comfortable rail length.
Re:Comments at TFA by zeropointburn · 2012-02-08 05:14 · Score: 1

A lot of energy, yes, but for a very short period of time.
Given that the cost of the entire prototype program is vastly less than the cost of a Shuttle launch, it is safe to assume(!) that the per-kilo cost to orbit is substantially less via railgun.
In addition, given that the payload is launched by a single initial impulse rather than a long, slow burn, the mass fraction is much higher. You are not using energy to lift a bunch of fuel to provide energy to lift a bunch of fuel to provide, etc., etc. to lift the payload into orbit, you are simply lifting the payload into orbit.
Viable payloads for this technology include food, water, fuel, oxygen, metal, plastic. With appropriate facilities in orbit, these things can then be assembled into useful and interesting devices. If all we have to do is lift astronauts and sensitive components via Shuttle (or Proton rocket or Dragon capsule or whatever), then we can save billions on launch costs while exploring our solar system.

--
-1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
Re:Comments at TFA by Dynedain · 2012-02-08 05:21 · Score: 1

It is worth remembering that the German V2 research became the basis for manned space exploration both in the US and in the Soviet Union. Eventual space cooperation led to better arms reduction treaties
The research also became the basis for the nuclear arms buildup in the first place. If you can put a man into controlled orbit, you can also put a warhead wherever you want it.

--
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Re:Comments at TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 06:06 · Score: 1, Informative

I did the math. Sufficiently slow acceleration of 3Gs would require a distance of several miles (going from memory here) to achieve 17,000 miles per hour. As much as it sucks, it's still better to put the propulsion system on the vehicle.
Regards,
Jason C. Wells
Re:Comments at TFA by mdsolar · 2012-02-08 06:18 · Score: 1

Actually, we started out with bombers, which we still use. But I'll grant that the hydrogen bomb was aimed towards a missile. More bang for the buck meant more bang per launcher really.
Re:Comments at TFA by Mysticalfruit · 2012-02-08 06:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

How many miles long? Consider the fact that run way for the shuttle land on is actually 15,000 feet long (4572m)

--
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Re:Comments at TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 06:44 · Score: 1

Meh, just use it to launch the necessary supplies. Like additional fuel, dihydrogen monoxide, chocolate, etc. Most of those things don't care about the G force. Send the squishy thingies up the normal way.
(hah, captcha: magnet)
Re:Comments at TFA by careysub · 2012-02-08 06:49 · Score: 3, Informative

I did the math. Sufficiently slow acceleration of 3Gs would require a distance of several miles (going from memory here) to achieve 17,000 miles per hour. As much as it sucks, it's still better to put the propulsion system on the vehicle.
Regards, Jason C. Wells
It is not possible to put something into orbit using a ground launcher alone. An on-board motor is essential at the very least to circularize the trajectory so that the "orbit" does not intersect the surface of the Earth before completing one revolution. And you lost way to much energy in the lower atmosphere (and create incredible heat loads) trying to ram through it at super-orbital speeds (in fact the G-loading from this deceleration alone will probably be prohibitive for humans).
For Earth-surface launches it could provide a replacement for the first stage - get you above 95%-99% of the atmosphere where rocket engines are most efficient and no longer have to fight lower atmosphere air resistance. This might make a single (rocket) stage to orbit system practical.

--
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Re:Comments at TFA by mk1004 · 2012-02-08 06:50 · Score: 1

And atmospheric friction would require that the 'projectile' would need better heat shielding than current spacecraft need for reentry. Unless you can get the rail gun above a significant portion of the atmosphere--on a mountain maybe?--the projectile is likely to burn up.

--
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
Re:Comments at TFA by SixAndFiftyThree · 2012-02-08 06:57 · Score: 1

The real problem is that the payload would reach 8km/s speed before leaving the atmosphere. Think frictional heating. Think sonic boom. Think shock waves hammering the rail or the structure that supports it. Sure you can embed the whole thing in the ground, then it'll be strong enough, but your payload will come out doing 8km/s horizontally, not very useful.
Also think that turning a railgun that can do 2km/s into one that can do 8km/s may not be any easier than taking my car and turning it into one that can go four times as fast.
For an alternative, look up "laser launch" on a good search engine. It's still rocket propulsion, but with potential for significantly better specific impulse.
Re:Comments at TFA by dmgxmichael · 2012-02-08 07:22 · Score: 1

Advancements in battery and magnetic technologies, particularly as they try to miniaturize these things to a soldier held weapon (though giving each infantryman ten times the firepower of an Abrams tank creates a whole new dimension of problems). But energy storage and release mechanisms will be improved by this research, just as interchangeable parts - originally developed by Eli Whitney ( cotton gin's inventor, remember him? ) - spread from guns to all manner of mass production through the industrial age.
Re:Comments at TFA by shiftless · 2012-02-08 07:28 · Score: 1

The real problem is that the payload would reach 8km/s speed before leaving the atmosphere. Think frictional heating. Think sonic boom. Think shock waves hammering the rail or the structure that supports it. Sure you can embed the whole thing in the ground, then it'll be strong enough, but your payload will come out doing 8km/s horizontally, not very useful.
Well, what if you used a mountainside, and the end of the rail was at the top of a really tall mountain, say Mount Everest? That would solve a large part of the problem I think. The rest pretty much sounds like a more or less straightforward engineering problem.
Re:Comments at TFA by WindBourne · 2012-02-08 07:49 · Score: 1

That is why you only take it to mach 3-5, then use other means to get 17K mph.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Comments at TFA by Fnord666 · 2012-02-08 08:11 · Score: 1

I do agree with you though as I too think there will be practical applications for sending non-compressible items into orbit (or beyond) until we can address the limitations with our squishiness. I'd be interested to see a comparison of the energy requirements of such a launch compared to the current means, from the basics I understand these things take a crap ton of energy to drive them.
These could however be a good start for deep space exploration. A system like this could be used to orbit payloads of raw materials for construction of large space vessels in orbit. Without the need to enter an atmosphere, a space ship could have a radically different design than what we have done so far. Think more like "Discovery One" for example.
As far as energy requirements go, since you aren't lifting the source of the energy out of the gravity well (at least part way) that should be helpful. You are looking at something that would need to be in an isolated area anyway with a lot of flat miles available. A dedicated nuclear plant could produce the needed energy and would not be near any populated areas if people have concerns.

--
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Re:Comments at TFA by X0563511 · 2012-02-08 11:01 · Score: 1

OK, so what if you used the rail to bring it up close to that speed, and let an onboard motor (eg rocket) finish the job? You don't have to go one way or the other, you can use both. Give the rocket less to do, and you get more efficiency out of the whole thing, since you don't have to move nearly as much fuel.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Comments at TFA by mdsolar · 2012-02-08 12:44 · Score: 1

Seems to me that deceleration from the atmosphere could be handled by using a high surface density projectile, something long. Then F/m is not so large. One could also lead with several sacrificial projectiles to clear the air ahead. Normally, a way to circularize an orbit would be a rocket. But, for low earth orbit, an air anchor on a tether might do the job.
Re:Comments at TFA by mdsolar · 2012-02-08 12:47 · Score: 1

My son and I have been considering building the thing as a neutral buoyancy structure in the ocean. Could get a better launch angle that way.
Re:Comments at TFA by Solandri · 2012-02-08 12:47 · Score: 1

But only soft payloads like people need to be launched at less than 3-5Gs. Everything else you need to support them in space - food, air, water, fuel, electronics, space station module parts, etc. can easily survive the 100+ g of a railgun or gas gun launch. So you're still looking at an enormous cost savings.
Re:Comments at TFA by bryan1945 · 2012-02-08 14:13 · Score: 1

There was a sci-fi book that utilized a long rail that started horizontal and then gradually curved vertical up a mountain. Too long ago to remember the name.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Re:Comments at TFA by dbIII · 2012-02-08 14:23 · Score: 1

Back in the late 1980s I was using something pretty similar to half of Saddam's proposed supergun (two stage gas gun) to squash bits of metal together at high speed while in the same building people were using something like the full gun to provide a shock wave to test scramjet models. There's a lot of potential uses for cheap ways to make things go at mach 1 or faster.
Re:Comments at TFA by mjwx · 2012-02-08 15:14 · Score: 1

How many miles long? Consider the fact that run way for the shuttle land on is actually 15,000 feet long (4572m)
For comparison, most commercial airport runways are 3000 m long. 4000 m is considered long for a commercial airport although common at well used hubs.

A B777 requires about 2500 m for take off at maximum weight, a A380 requires 2800 m and a B747-400 requires about 3100 m.

The Space Shuttle can land on an ordinary commercial runway but uses longer and wider runways for safety purposes. 3200 m is long enough as that is the length of the runways in the former Clark Airforce Base in the Philippines which was listed as an alternate landing site until the base was decommissioned in the 90's. Having landed at CRK, they are noticeably wider then most commercial runways.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Comments at TFA by Ihmhi · 2012-02-08 23:04 · Score: 1

I wonder, couldn't we create something similar to a particle accelerator (at least in shape)?
Imagine a coilgun in the shape of a number 9. It can spin something up to top speed in the "circle" portion, and then flip a switch to fire it out the "straight" portion (like changing train tracks) when it's up to speed. It'd certainly solve the problem of having to have a 15 mile long railgun or something like that.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:Comments at TFA by tehcyder · 2012-02-09 03:01 · Score: 1

It is worth remembering that the German V2 research became the basis for manned space exploration both in the US and in the Soviet Union. Eventual space cooperation led to better arms reduction treaties.
But the intellectual and material resources put into the German research could equally well have been done in peactime. The war didn't magically turn German rocket scientists into supermen. Rocket technology would have developed anyway.

Also, it was the fact of rocket and nuclear technology developments combined with the col war resulting from WW2 that led to the capability of ICBMs and thus necessitted the arms reduction treaties in the first place, so that's not much of an argument for the peacetime benefits of war.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Comments at TFA by tehcyder · 2012-02-09 03:20 · Score: 1

I wonder, couldn't we create something similar to a particle accelerator (at least in shape)?
Imagine a coilgun in the shape of a number 9. It can spin something up to top speed in the "circle" portion, and then flip a switch to fire it out the "straight" portion (like changing train tracks) when it's up to speed. It'd certainly solve the problem of having to have a 15 mile long railgun or something like that.
As a number 9 is just an upside down 6, you could equally well describe your device as a six-shooter.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Comments at TFA by mdsolar · 2012-02-09 03:22 · Score: 1

Weapons making peace necessary is an interesting thought. Kind of harmonizes with libertarian ideas about an armed society being a polite society. My thinking was more along the lines that tech development, even when military, has peaceful applications as well.
Re:Comments at TFA by tehcyder · 2012-02-09 03:24 · Score: 1

The real problem is that the payload would reach 8km/s speed before leaving the atmosphere. Think frictional heating. Think sonic boom. Think shock waves hammering the rail or the structure that supports it
I'm thinking Hollywood Blockbuster.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Comments at TFA by tehcyder · 2012-02-09 03:46 · Score: 1

Its a matter of opinion anyways. I would say it is a peaceful technology in that the US military does not conquer countries.
Going for the funny mod, eh?

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

What's this? by dpilot · 2012-02-08 04:14 · Score: 5, Funny

Sounds like another government rail subsidy to me. Or is it really "TSA meets Amtrak"?

(I'm preparing to get strafed.)

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.

light gas gun by vlm · 2012-02-08 04:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

I always thought a nuclear steam powered light gas gun filled with electrolyzed hydrogen would be cool. light gas guns never get the love they deserve.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Re:light gas gun by amicusNYCL · 2012-02-08 04:59 · Score: 1

Maybe they need a sexier name than "nuclear steam powered light gas gun filled with electrolyzed hydrogen".

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:light gas gun by EdZ · 2012-02-08 05:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Maybe they need a sexier name than "nuclear steam powered light gas gun filled with electrolyzed hydrogen".
I'm not sure you're on the correct website if "nuclear steam powered light gas gun filled with electrolyzed hydrogen" is not near the apex of sexy names.
Re:light gas gun by rahvin112 · 2012-02-08 05:46 · Score: 5, Informative

The beauty of the railgun and why the Navy is so aggressively pursing them is that explosive based weapons are very dangerous at sea under counter attack. The most secure portion of the ship is often the munitions storage area for this reason as a properly placed round can blow the bottom out of the ship by igniting the munitions stored.
The railgun does away with the whole bit, the munitions are rods of metal and the propellant is electricity. Without all the powder storage you can either dramatically reduce the size of ship and crew or dramatically increase the number of rounds deliverable before restocking. Finally the restocking ships aren't going to be carrying combustible munitions. A round 1/4 the size of the largest battleship guns fired from a railgun will do nearly 100 times the damage.
The goal of the Navy DDX program is ships with 1/4 the crew size, 10 times the firepower and a significant reduction in profile (stealth). Imagine being able to field twice the number of ships for half the cost and a single ship has more firepower than 10 current models.
Re:light gas gun by MobyDisk · 2012-02-08 06:41 · Score: 1

Do not forget that the powder is replaced with capacitors which are similarly volatile.
Re:light gas gun by jgtg32a · 2012-02-08 06:55 · Score: 1

Don't capacitors and flywheels get angry if they are disturbed?
Re:light gas gun by Chris+Mattern · 2012-02-08 06:57 · Score: 1

You need a cooler name. "Light gas gun" sounds like something that shoots out wisps of smoke. Railgun, now, *that* sounds like something that's gonna hurt.
Re:light gas gun by shiftless · 2012-02-08 07:30 · Score: 1

Seconded
Re:light gas gun by shiftless · 2012-02-08 07:33 · Score: 1

Oh, good. It's not like there's a high likelihood the ship would ever be simultaneously under attack while using its cannon...
Re:light gas gun by WindBourne · 2012-02-08 07:53 · Score: 1

Yeah, but they really need to move the DDX to nuke powered. At least half of them. Cheaper over the long haul, and easier to make electricity with.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:light gas gun by WindBourne · 2012-02-08 07:55 · Score: 1

which are easy enough to locate in a different part of the ship. Ideally, the ship would have multiple locations for caps and would simply rotate through them. That way if hit, the likelihood of going up is minimal

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:light gas gun by Algae_94 · 2012-02-08 08:45 · Score: 1

It's still less of a risk than carrying current munitions. Don't fight wars if you can't risk things blowing up.
Re:light gas gun by Rinikusu · 2012-02-08 08:49 · Score: 1

Half the cost? Isn't there some sort of contractor rule that if it's designed to cost less, they have to figure out a way to double the budget by the end of the project and walk home with twice the profits hidden away as cost overruns?

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Re:light gas gun by rahvin112 · 2012-02-08 09:01 · Score: 1

Operating cost. Construction costs are 5-10 times higher. The three Zumwalt class ships ordered will cost $3.3Billion and they aren't using nukes OR railguns in the initial models. Though from all indications this is the platform that will host those items when they are finally developed. The original talk was two small navy nukes on board, one to drive the railguns and another to power everything else. Google Zumwalt class.
Re:light gas gun by X0563511 · 2012-02-08 11:03 · Score: 1

Yea, but you can't "discharge" explosives into a safe state and then later charge them back up for use. The explosives are always dangerous... the capacitors only when charged for use.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:light gas gun by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-08 11:07 · Score: 1

Maybe they need a sexier name than "nuclear steam powered light gas gun filled with electrolyzed hydrogen".
I think that's what they call a "BFG" in space marines...
Re:light gas gun by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-08 11:08 · Score: 1

A ship is much more likely to be attacked from the air than by another ship these days. And yes, it's not a high likelihood that it'd be using its main cannon at that point.
Re:light gas gun by yurtinus · 2012-02-08 11:13 · Score: 1

Yes, but only if they're charged or spinning - as opposed to chemical explosives which can get angry at any time.

--
+1 Disagree
Re:light gas gun by ChrisMaple · 2012-02-08 13:52 · Score: 1

A warship at sea carries propellant and explosive enough for all its ammunition. If an incoming shell hits a magazine, a substantial fraction of all that goes boom. For a railgun, presumably powered by a nuclear generator, only a small portion of the energy is in the capacitors at any time. I'd guess there's a possibility that the ship could be designed so that an exploding capacitor could vent safely.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:light gas gun by shiftless · 2012-02-08 14:02 · Score: 1

I agree, the rail gun idea is overall far better than conventional explosives. I was pretty just much just facetious.
Re:light gas gun by shiftless · 2012-02-08 14:04 · Score: 1

And drunk, apparently
Re:light gas gun by bryan1945 · 2012-02-08 14:39 · Score: 1

"Light Gas Gun" sounds like something a frat boy at a party would say while lighting a fart on fire.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Re:light gas gun by tehcyder · 2012-02-09 03:50 · Score: 1

Don't capacitors and flywheels get angry if they are disturbed?
Do you live on Discworld or something?

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

That's Jigglewatts. by mdsolar · 2012-02-08 04:17 · Score: 1

Got to pronounce it right.

Re:That's Jigglewatts. by Sulphur · 2012-02-08 04:56 · Score: 1

Shiver me timbers matey.

Where are they testing it? Off the coast of Iran? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 04:25 · Score: 1

Where are they testing it? Off the coast of Iran?

no Arnold Schwarzenegger by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 04:26 · Score: 1

You're in an extremely high risk situation, Miss Cullen. That should've been explained to you.

Go Black Mesa! Bring on the Cacodemons! by CYDVicious · 2012-02-08 04:30 · Score: 1

I came to Kick ass and chew bubble gum, and I am all out of gum...

--
//Nothing to see here, please move along.

In Mother Russia.... by mitashki · 2012-02-08 04:36 · Score: 1

...they are hecticly spraying all their tanks with an anti-railgun paint.

--
"When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail."

Re:In Mother Russia.... by gtall · 2012-02-08 04:52 · Score: 1

And it will be a handy excuse for their next space screwup:
Engineer: Sir, it just went poof.
Russian Official: Wha? How?
Engineer: Must have been the USN's railgun sir.
Russian Official: But, but, but...it was already on Mars.
Engineer: It's a very BIG railgun sir.
Re:In Mother Russia.... by Nadaka · 2012-02-08 04:53 · Score: 5, Funny

"When all you have is a railgun, everything starts to look like a smoking crater."

Re:Where's Gordon Freeman when you need him? by somersault · 2012-02-08 04:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Pfft. Quake Guy did it first.

--
which is totally what she said

Re:not enough power.... by hAckz0r · 2012-02-08 04:38 · Score: 1, Informative

But if they had that much power they would have to be shooting at WWII Japanese aircraft carriers or German panzer tanks, and that war is already over. Why waste the time?

Besides, a link off of the article says "a one-ton vehicle moving at 100 mph equals a megajoule of energy", and therefor 33 Megajoules is clearly over the 88 mph threashold the car needs, and them some. Using electricity the gun you can at least save you on gas. Its just the sudden starts and stops that we need to learn to deal with.

"Velocitas eradico"? by srussia · 2012-02-08 04:48 · Score: 1

Just put mottos in English already. This is getting embarrassing.

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!

Re:"Velocitas eradico"? by PatPending · 2012-02-08 06:28 · Score: 2

"velocitas eradico" translates to "get rid of speed" (according to Google). Get rid of speed? How about "victoria ad velox" instead? ("For a swift victory" or "Victory through Speed")

--
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
Re:"Velocitas eradico"? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-08 11:10 · Score: 1

You must be that guy who complains that coats of arms are not boring enough, too.
Re:"Velocitas eradico"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 12:57 · Score: 1

I'm no Latin expert, but based on the tech at hand, are you sure it doesn't translate to "to get rid of WITH speed" or "using speed"
Or maybe just "Speed kills"
The two root words are obvious enough. Velocitas = velocity. Eradico = Eradicate.
I just don't know the conjugations. Where's Eddie Izzard when you need him??
Re:"Velocitas eradico"? by ChrisMaple · 2012-02-08 14:15 · Score: 2

Velocitas is the nominative or vocative form of the noun (not an adjective, adverb, or verb), and in this context it has to be nominative. Essentially, that means it's the subject of the sentence. Eradico is the first person singular indicative of eradicare. So "speed kills" looks like the best translation.
It's been 45 years since high school Latin, but I think the grammar of "Velocitas eradico" is wrong and cannot be a proper sentence or phrase. I believe it should be "Eradicat velocitas", third person singular, verb first. Anybody out there really know?

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Obsoleting their own fleet? by Shivetya · 2012-02-08 04:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Truly, if nothing makes a carrier more obsolete is a weapon that can hit one where there will likely be no practical defense. Is any surface ship safe from such a weapon? Yes I know you can definitely pilot an evasive course but you have to know your being attacked before you can do that.

So how many years before a surface fleet is rendered obsolete? All the quotes in the article about giving sailors more options and precision are too easily reversed.

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.

Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by mdsolar · 2012-02-08 05:06 · Score: 1

Good point. But why would you need a surface fleet if a submarine fleet would do a better job. The carrier group projects force, but a rail gun equipped sub group projects more. TFA mentions using the rail guns for carrier protection against missiles too.
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-02-08 05:07 · Score: 3, Informative

Truly, if nothing makes a carrier more obsolete is a weapon that can hit one where there will likely be no practical defense. Is any surface ship safe from such a weapon? Yes I know you can definitely pilot an evasive course but you have to know your being attacked before you can do that.
Not sure I see how this will make a carrier obsolete, really.
It's not like a carrier is really worried about 5" shellfire, even at extended ranges - the big missiles with 450+ kg warheads are much more of a problem, really.
However, as to evading fire from such a weapon. At 200 km, and 2500 m/s muzzle speeds, we're talking pretty near two minutes (yes, it loses speed the whole way, so it won't be anywhere near as quick as 200/2.5 travel time) between shot and landing. And our radars can detect a shell-sized object now (that's what counterbattery radar is for, after all), so you have a minute or more to change your projected position by 200 meters - you can manage that without even turning, just speed up/down as needed.
This ignoring the detail that you won't even be able to see the carrier at 200 km without aerial surveillance, and the carrier air group will be doing its best to make sure your aerial surveillance quickly becomes sub-surface surveillance....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by chainsaw1 · 2012-02-08 05:17 · Score: 1

When you consider supercavitating torpedoes that are approaching or surpassing the speed of sound in water (and have active homing), things like this, and actual DE weapons (closure rate close to c) in development there are a lot of hazards out there.
Yes, each new technology can be use against you. Science is science, the will to use (and how to use) is an invention of man. However, by knowing about and having these items first, you have time to develop defenses. You also have the means to test those defenses since you have the weapon systems already. This is why we press forward with R&D in the military.
Further, there is significant political traction by saying we have these items. If that alone leads to a peaceful solution without actually having to use systems of destruction, then hasn't that weapon still paid off?
Many would say the value is in fact greater than if it was actually used, as no one ended up getting hurt as would happen in a conventional conflict. Others may have different opinions...

--
- Sig
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 05:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Worth considering that Mortar teams based in Kandahar airport during the Afghanistan campaign were able to detect incoming mortars on radar, calculate where they'd been launched from based on their arc, and return fire at the launch site before the mortars had landed.
With a railgun you've got much less time to react, but if you can detect them you should be able to either evade or at the very least return fire. There's also the consideration that a projectile moving at Mach 5 isn't going to do a huge amount of damage; it'll punch a nice clean hole through your ship, but won't damage much outside its own movement corridor unless it hits something like an ammunition locker. You can mitigate that kind of damage the same way you would on an aircraft; fly-by-wire design and massive redundancies.
It'd obsolete most current designs if used as a ship to ship weapon, but that's the point. Not many nations could handle the redesign and development of their ships needed, which reduces your opposition to a handful of relatively rich nations.
That said, this is all predicated on it being used as a ship to ship weapon; it strikes me as being more useful to shoot down incoming artillery and missiles.
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by demonbug · 2012-02-08 05:57 · Score: 2

When you consider supercavitating torpedoes that are approaching or surpassing the speed of sound in water (and have active homing)...
Interesting, I wasn't aware of any torpedoes moving at close to 3,500 mph (speed of sound in seawater is ~1560 m/s). Or did you mean the torpedoes exceed the speed of sound in air at sea level? Even that I find hard to believe, as everything I have seen indicates top speeds in the realm of 200-350 mph.
Great, got sidetracked thinking about detecting supersonic jets acoustically - if an F-22 is headed straight at you over the ocean flat out, assuming you have a sensitive enough microphone in the water, you should be able to hear it coming before it gets to you if you are more than ~22 miles away. So, uh, there's that.
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-02-08 06:11 · Score: 1

The Fleet won't be obsolete if you can use some other weapon system to knock out their rail gun before you get in range. Then your fleet brings in the troops and other heavy equipment.

Or, you make sure your floating rail guns are the biggest on the planet.

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-02-08 06:27 · Score: 1

And our radars can detect a shell-sized object now (that's what counterbattery radar is for, after all), so you have a minute or more to change your projected position by 200 meters - you can manage that without even turning, just speed up/down as needed
The key would be the rep rate. If the rail gun can only launch every minute or so, it's not much better than current gunpower big guns.
On the other hand, if the rep rate is multiple rounds per second, a ship would have a hard time evading a swarm of projectiles. Even a big ship would have trouble with dozens of 5" slugs hitting the engine room.

Anyway, you'd first send in your jets to pulverize the rail gun before you got into its range.

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by dmgxmichael · 2012-02-08 07:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not sure I see how this will make a carrier obsolete, really.
It's not like a carrier is really worried about 5" shellfire, even at extended ranges - the big missiles with 450+ kg warheads are much more of a problem, really.
However, as to evading fire from such a weapon. At 200 km, and 2500 m/s muzzle speeds, we're talking pretty near two minutes (yes, it loses speed the whole way, so it won't be anywhere near as quick as 200/2.5 travel time) between shot and landing. And our radars can detect a shell-sized object now (that's what counterbattery radar is for, after all), so you have a minute or more to change your projected position by 200 meters - you can manage that without even turning, just speed up/down as needed.
This ignoring the detail that you won't even be able to see the carrier at 200 km without aerial surveillance, and the carrier air group will be doing its best to make sure your aerial surveillance quickly becomes sub-surface surveillance....
The obsolescence threat to the carrier does not come in the form of a direct threat to the ship's survivability. That is part of it, but not the whole or even the largest of it, and you are ignoring that largest part. What is the carrier's role?
Projection of Force.
Carrier aircraft allow it to hit targets up 600 to 1000 km away, or more with refueling tankers. Rail guns however can also hit targets at these ranges, or even further, and even harder.
And don't kid yourself about being able to dodge the shot either. Not even 2 weeks ago another slashdot article was going on about a steerable bullet that could be fired from a sniper rifle. There is no reason to believe the shells of a rail gun might not also one day be likewise steerable. If we can build a steering system in a 30 gram bullet we can build one in a 5Kg shell. It doesn't take much steering to hit a moving carrier, which can only move 200 meters at most during the entire flight of your bullet.
And you don't need an explosive in the warhead at all if you have a 2,500 m/s velocity. The kinetic energy from a 5kg slug travelling at that velocity will punch through the hull of a carrier like butter and the impact will be quite explosive without any actual explosive chemicals. After all, F = MV. 2,500 m/s is a LOT of velocity, and you don't need much mass to impart a lot of force on a very small area of the armor to punch through. That's what makes hyper-velocity projectiles so appealing. Their threat is entirely from their velocity - not a dangerous explosive that might go off in storage.
Anyone who thinks the carrier can survive the appearance of the rail gun on the scene of naval warfare is still fighting the last war, not the next war. The carrier is a big relatively easy to hit target for guns. WWI Battleships can't get close enough to them to sink them because of the planes. A railgun equipped battleship however will be able to not only get in range of the carrier, but outrange the carrier. The shell makes the trip in 2 minutes. That's a long lag time, but nowhere near as much as the hour it takes to launch a plane out to and bomb the attacker. Even if the planes are in the air at the start its still 20 minutes before they can be on site. And yeah, you might shoot down or dodge a rail gun projectile, but what about one every minute? Every 15 seconds? A gun may only have a 1 / 15 minutes firing rate, but multiple ships with these can mass their fire on the large target.
Carriers are awesome, but so where battleships, so where Ships of the Line. Their days are numbered, and this gun is writing on the wall for them just as surely as the USS Monitor was the writing on the wall for the whole British fleet that fateful day 150 years ago next month at Hampton Roads.
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by blackanvil · 2012-02-08 07:04 · Score: 1

The surface fleet was obsoleted once we had working nukes and short-range ballistic delivery systems. The ability to "shoot down" incoming ordinance doesn't work once you're hit with a strong EMP (and, no, our advanced defense systems are not hardened to withstand that, even on aircraft carriers.) Of course, once nukes are used between superpowers, it's all over for everyone once the fallout settles.
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by mdsolar · 2012-02-08 07:07 · Score: 1

The navy is looking for a power source that can handle 10 rounds per minute.
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by dmgxmichael · 2012-02-08 07:56 · Score: 1

Radar detecting a mortar round, which is fired indirectly and falls onto the target at the speed of gravity (about 9.8 m/s/s) is a far cry from intercepting a shot travelling at 2,500 m/s by several orders of magnitude. Also, the impact energy at those speeds will not just punch a hole in the ship - it will explode. Kinetic Energy is not to be underestimated.
820 m/s is the muzzle velocity for the guns on the USS Iowa class battleships. That's pretty much as fast as a shell can be thrown with chemical propellant. They fire a 1,200 kg shell. That works out to an impact force of 984,000 (exactly what these units are I don't know offhand. I just know the formula is F = MA).
"Punch a Hole" is what a 420 m/s 9mm parabellum round does. Such bullets weigh around 9 grams. Or 3.78 units.
An armor piercing battleship round FYI does NOT have explosives in it. It doesn't need them. 984,000 vs. 3.78.
Compare 2,500 m/s * 5kg still outputs 12,500. It's hitting with 1/100th the energy of the old battleship, but doing it at 10 times the range. That's still sufficient to do a lot more than merely "punch a hole."
Here's the thing folks... A ship is the size required to carry the weapon and no larger. This applies to all ships, even carriers. Supercarriers are as small as they can be while still being able to deploy jet aircraft. Battleships where as small as they could be while still providing an adequate platform for those 16" guns. Rail guns will not require carrier or even battleship sized ships. Being smaller and stealthier they will have a decided advantage.
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by Algae_94 · 2012-02-08 09:20 · Score: 1

You're math is incorrect. F=MA. You are quoting M x V for the projectile. A better comparison would be to look at the kinetic energy of the projectiles which is 1/2 MV^2.

USS Iowa class battleship guns kinetic energy = 0.5*1200* 820^2 = 403440000 Joules, or 112 kWh.

9mm parabellum round kinetic energy = 0.5*.009*420^2 = 793.8 J or 0.0002205 kWh.

theoretical calculation for a projectile at 2500 m/s that weighs 5kg. Energy = 0.5*5*2500^2 = 15625000 J or 4.34 kWh. ~ 1/30th the energy of the battleship projectile.

If the high speed does cause the projectile to completely penetrate through the target, That means that the target doesn't absorb all of the projectiles energy. Considering the amount of energy involved, I don't think it would put a clean hole through a ship without some serious shockwaves and damage.

Two of these projectiles has enough energy to power my house for more than a day. The battleship's gun could power my house for close to 3 weeks.
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by Patch86 · 2012-02-08 09:32 · Score: 1

That works out to an impact force of 984,000 (exactly what these units are I don't know offhand. I just know the formula is F = MA).
Newtons, I think. Although I thought the A in F=MA was for "acceleration", whereas you've used m/s (a velocity) so I'm not certain we've got the maths right on that one. But then it's been a long time since I last thought of that formula...
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by hackertourist · 2012-02-08 09:33 · Score: 1

If we can build a steering system in a 30 gram bullet we can build one in a 5Kg shell.
Wouldn't the huge magnetic field in the gun (they use a current on the order of 1 MA) destroy any electronic circuits in the bullet?
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by dmgxmichael · 2012-02-08 09:38 · Score: 1

If we can build a steering system in a 30 gram bullet we can build one in a 5Kg shell.
Wouldn't the huge magnetic field in the gun (they use a current on the order of 1 MA) destroy any electronic circuits in the bullet?
That definitely falls under the heading of "complication" - but I don't believe it would be an insurmountable challenge. They won't know until they try.
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by dmgxmichael · 2012-02-08 09:48 · Score: 1

A is indeed acceleration. An object travelling at a velocity of 2,500 m/s velocity that strikes an object at rest will impart an acceleration to that object. But working out the exact translation is beyond my skillset - what I wrote above is intended as an approxmation for getting an idea of the scales of the forces involved, not their precise measurement.
Also, Newtons as a unit of force require the acceleration and mass to be measured in specific units. There are other force measurements, such as joules. Since I'm not sure of the units involved I didn't name off the force unit because I know of two and don't know which is appropriate.
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by ShooterNeo · 2012-02-08 10:14 · Score: 1

Actually, the shells will be guided. They will adjust their course in flight to home in on a laser that is painting the target, or I've seen proposals for GPS guidance. A plausible scenario would be that you find the enemy ships or tanks or whatever with a fleet of small, cheap, possibly disposable drone aircraft and paint the target with one of those.
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by ShooterNeo · 2012-02-08 10:16 · Score: 1

Faraday cage.
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by ShooterNeo · 2012-02-08 10:19 · Score: 1

ELECTRIC fields get blocked by the metal of the bullet itself. Magnetic fields don't affect semiconductors all that much. I think, I'm not an expert on the relevent physics. I know that it doesn't matter how much current is involved, faraday cages are perfect. And another complexity is the bullet needs a "window", made of sapphire or something, in order to see the laser beam reflected off of the target. Or It needs integrated antenna to receive GPS signals (although at the speeds we are talking about, I'm not sure if GPS is all that accurate).
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by dmgxmichael · 2012-02-08 10:35 · Score: 1

If you'd read the article, you'd note the British and French fleets stopped all wooden warship production within a month of the battle. Within 20 years everyone had transitioned over to ironclads like the Merrimac or purely iron vessels like the Monitor.
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by m50d · 2012-02-08 11:17 · Score: 1

If being able to hit something 600km away is all a carrier is good for, shouldn't missiles have made them obsolete?

--
I am trolling
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-08 11:29 · Score: 1

USS Iowa class battleship guns kinetic energy = 0.5*1200* 820^2 = 403440000 Joules, or 112 kWh.
That's muzzle velocity, though. A pure kinetic energy penetrator usually has far more aerodynamic shape than your average shell, because it doesn't need to carry any charge - so you can shape it very long and very narrow. Iowa's Mark 7, in contrast, has a caliber of 400mm. That'll get quite a lot of air resistance while flying.
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by dmgxmichael · 2012-02-08 11:31 · Score: 1

Missiles are a bit larger and more expensive than a 5 kg slug of metal and don't travel at 2,500 m/s (More like 500 to 900 m/s). The carrier's other roles won't go away with the appearance of the rail gun, but the roles that will remain for it are better served by amphibious landing carriers like the USS Wasp. Rather than be the core of the fleet it will return to a support role eventually.
Thing is, the carrier may not be feasible now in a equal fight with another superpower. It really hasn't been tested against a foe capable of throwing effective shore to ship or ship to ship missiles at it. But it is very effective at intimidating and controlling tinpot dictators.
After all, the uselessness of battleships in sea control against a carrier wasn't proven conclusively until midway through WWII.
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by yurtinus · 2012-02-08 11:37 · Score: 1

Very good response. I'm having trouble digging up details on the dimensions of the demonstrator, but suspect you won't need anything near the size of a battleship to equip one of these. Picture a submarine equipped with such a weapon - surface, fire, submerge. All from hundreds of miles away. The problem isn't figuring out how a carrier task force can combat such a weapon - it simply can't. The problem is how do you replace the carrier? There are a number of roles that aircraft do that simply can't be met by long range artillery, no matter how fast and accurate. How do you gain air superiority when you don't have a platform for your aircraft? How do you put boots on the ground and supply them?

Most of this discussion has been about the applications of this gun in the offensive role, but I think in the defensive role it is a fundamental change in the way large wars are fought.

--
+1 Disagree
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by mdsolar · 2012-02-08 11:52 · Score: 1

"What we are seeing here, as any military person in the audience can tell you, is nothing more than a repetition of weapons systems that goes back to the beginning of time. An offensive weapons system is developed, and it takes time to develop the defense. And then another offensive weapon is developed that overcomes that defense, and then another defense is built up -- as surely as castles and moats held off people with spears and bows and arrows and riding horses, and the catapult was developed to overcome the castle and the moat." -- President Clinton http://www.cybercrime.gov/nas9901.htm
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by yurtinus · 2012-02-08 11:53 · Score: 1

And keep in mind we're comparing the pinnacle of the technology (in the battleship gun) against a technology demonstrator. The velocity, mass, or both are going to increase significantly by the time these get fielded.

--
+1 Disagree
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by bryan1945 · 2012-02-08 14:46 · Score: 1

With the emergence of UAVs, perhaps a mini-carrier? Way smaller, less radar profile, better manueverability. Just an idea.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by d3ac0n · 2012-02-09 03:42 · Score: 1

Of course, once nukes are used between superpowers, it's all over for everyone once the fallout settles.
And therefore the carrier group is NOT obsolete because NOBODY sane wants to go into a "Mutually Assured Destruction" scenario.
The only concern we really need have about nukes is from rogue actors and rogue states. And they are unlikely to be attempting to mount a full-frontal assault on a carrier group.

--
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Re:Obsoleting their own fleet? by Patch86 · 2012-02-09 09:11 · Score: 1

Thanks, it's all coming flooding back to me.
Newtons are a measure of force, while joules are a measure of energy. F=MA gives you force (and I'm fairly sure meters/second and kilogrammes give you newtons in that formula); I think one joule is equal to one newton meter, i.e. the energy required to apply one newton of force for one meter of distance. And that's probably nearing the limit of my knowledge without a serior Wikipedia refresher crash course first...

Working In Dahlgren by ClosedEyesSeeing · 2012-02-08 04:51 · Score: 1

"The prototype launcher is now being prepared for testing which is scheduled to take place in the coming weeks." As someone who works on the naval base, I've been hearing them test this for a long time. Also, my car alarm gets tired of going off because of it.

Re:Working In Dahlgren by Whorhay · 2012-02-08 05:12 · Score: 1

The article seemed to indicate that this was a new prototype for them to test. There were several mentions of ongoing testing of previous prototypes.

Re:Where's Gordon Freeman when you need him? by h4rr4r · 2012-02-08 04:58 · Score: 1

No, but there might be some unforeseen consequences.

Gauss Cannon anyone? by gentryx · 2012-02-08 04:59 · Score: 2

Or am I the only one remembering this from the good old BattleTech times? BTW: I want my Warhammer equipped with dual Gauss cannons, please. ^^

--
Computer simulation made easy -- LibGeoDecomp

Huh? by assertation · 2012-02-08 05:00 · Score: 4, Funny

What does it do, shoot Ruby developers off of ships?

Re:Huh? by BitZtream · 2012-02-08 05:22 · Score: 3, Funny

As a former ruby fan ...
Finally, something useful to do with Rails developers!

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

The future is happening now by assertation · 2012-02-08 05:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

Ray guns on ships, putty that can heal broken bones in days, robotic military planes, hand held computers.

I have to say these are interesting times. The "future" ( a sci-fi like world ) is happening right now

Re:The future is happening now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-08 05:13 · Score: 1

All that but we haven't yet figured out how to cure the common cold, headaches, or even athlete's foot.
Re:The future is happening now by bmxeroh · 2012-02-08 05:37 · Score: 1

Tinactin?

--
Central Ohio Home Theater Installation - The Theater People
Re:The future is happening now by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-02-08 06:19 · Score: 1

Still waiting for cars with decent mileage, people willing to use their brains, a rational energy policy and no-TSA travel...
There, fixed that for you.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Re:The future is happening now by dkf · 2012-02-08 06:45 · Score: 1

Still waiting for flying cars, positronic brains, fusion energy, and FTL travel...
Flying cars require a fancy power source to be energetically viable. "Positronic brains" (leaving aside the whole "positronic" word, which Asimov said was just said for effect) requires solving the Hard AI Problem, which progress is being made on but it's turned out to be really hard. Fusion is available provided you don't want to extract useful energy out of it; getting energy out has required learning a shit-load of stuff about plasma physics and advanced materials. I'd guess that AI and fusion power are things that will happen, and flying cars won't happen (on anything other than an occasional curiosity level) for mundane reasons like the need for pilots licenses.
FTL travel is the big one. Nobody knows how to do FTL travel, or if they do they're not telling. I'd love to know how to even begin to crack that one on a practical level, especially as it would potentially solve all sorts of problems with space exploration. (I'd particularly like wormholes as in Pandora's Star as that would let people travel without the awkwardness of needing spaceships most of the time.) But it requires something that is believed impossible (or at least permanently out of reach) according to current theory, so I guess we'd better come up with other ideas for how to live without it. Or maybe we need to realize that the universe is not what we think it is, but that only helps if we're becoming more correct, not less...

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:The future is happening now by Chris+Mattern · 2012-02-08 07:00 · Score: 1

Flying cars require a fancy power source to be energetically viable.
No, the current power sources are perfectly adequate. What is needed is acceptance of automated flying, because too many drivers will never qualify as an adequate pilot.
Re:The future is happening now by Phrogman · 2012-02-08 07:45 · Score: 1

So many drivers should not be on the roads already, so yes, I cannot see flying cars ever become a viable option until such time as we can automate the whole process, including the ability for a ground based system to override the vehicle controls if necessary.

--
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Re:The future is happening now by mitashki · 2012-02-08 21:00 · Score: 1

The Doc said: "Everything can be cured by a railgun... once and for all."

--
"When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail."
Re:The future is happening now by assertation · 2012-02-10 03:44 · Score: 1

I will gladly accept researchers coming up with healing bones in days first and coming up with a cure for the common cold later.

This makes me very happy... by Liam_Whinery · 2012-02-08 06:00 · Score: 1

now if we can just get some Mechs to carry them.

Re:This makes me very happy... by Liam_Whinery · 2012-02-09 04:34 · Score: 1

Ha! I remember seeing that. Very nice engineering.

Re:Where's Gordon Freeman when you need him? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-02-08 06:09 · Score: 1

Wasn't he supposed to be in the Test Chamber half an hour ago?

Nah, he's currently working in Geneva.

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Mmhm, we can hope, but... by anonymov · 2012-02-08 06:32 · Score: 1

With this technology we can send some FREEDOM to/from the orbit easily, and cover wide areas with devastating LOVE flechette rounds and COOPERATION bunker busters.

Here, have some peace coming at you at supersonic speed!

Seriously, though, it could be awesome for delivering supplies to space with minimal dead weight for casing, control systems and a bit of fuel for maneuvering engines at final stage.

Time to shot some scrap metal to the moon and start building a colony?

Where is Cave Johnson when you need him? by DarthVain · 2012-02-08 06:40 · Score: 1

We're not banging rocks together here people, this is science!

Now all we need is some sort of AI to aim the thing and we'll be all set!

Mach 7 or 8 by Khyber · 2012-02-08 06:40 · Score: 1

Out into orbit in less than a minute. Cripes that's fast.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

frikkin' sharks with railguns on their heads by swschrad · 2012-02-08 06:41 · Score: 1

will wonders never cease

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?

Male Pattern Baldness by Tekfactory · 2012-02-08 06:58 · Score: 1

A friend of a friend back in the day wouldn't watch Star Trek Next Gen because they can replicate matter, teleport, travel faster than the speed of light and still hadn't found a cure for baldness.

Re:Male Pattern Baldness by Phrogman · 2012-02-08 07:43 · Score: 2

That's because they had recognized that some of us out there had *perfect* heads, and thus were bald, while the rest of you had to cover up your imperfect heads with a layer of fur. Some of us just haven't recognized the truth of this yet, and thus still view MPB as a problem :)
Or so I keep telling myself :P

--
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Re:Male Pattern Baldness by yurtinus · 2012-02-08 11:56 · Score: 1

Picture Patrick Stewart with hair. Go on, do it. Do you really want to live in that world?

--
+1 Disagree
Re:Male Pattern Baldness by bryan1945 · 2012-02-08 14:55 · Score: 1

I'm with you!

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Re:Male Pattern Baldness by bryan1945 · 2012-02-08 14:56 · Score: 1

I read somewhere that when Stewart first audition for Star Trek, they (agent, casting, no idea) had him wear a wig. After a few minutes, the people making the decisions told him to ditch it. Good choice.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Re:Male Pattern Baldness by assertation · 2012-02-10 03:48 · Score: 1

A lot of women HATE bald heads, but it turns on some women.
Stewart had it going on with the accent, attitude and keeping himself in shape. Those things helped override the ordinary bald-hating and made him into sex symbol. Sadly, like many sex symbols he likely plays for the other team so it doesn't do him any good.

This IS news, even with 4 yo Youtube clips of it by G3ckoG33k · 2012-02-08 07:00 · Score: 1

This IS news, even with 4 year old Youtube clips.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1q_rRicAwI

"Uploaded by noahmax6000 on Jan 31, 2008. Check out the Navy's record-breaking blast of an electromagnetic railgun...
Category: Science & Technology."

The thing is it was in testing phase four years ago. :)

ball park by bussdriver · 2012-02-08 07:19 · Score: 1

You may win in the initial sprint but the slow and steady pull is going to win the race.

Doing some ball park figuring in my head I would say it is not realistic. You are trying to have an initial velocity (exiting the gun) that is high enough that the constant deceleration of gravity and the decreasing levels of friction and wind resistance will not prevent it from maintaining escape velocity until it is free from the earth.

The amount of initial energy you have to pack has to be more than the total amount opposing you during the whole journey. Ignoring the crazy G forces involved, the speed is so high you likely have a huge temperature problem not to mention the MASSIVE energy losses you incur up to 30,000 feet where 90% of our heavy atmosphere resides. The wise move would be to exert only the minimum necessary which is greatest at the beginning but this difficult area is not a few feet you are punching through it is a long 30,000ft and then decreases from there except gravity will still be a huge problem-- if you are aiming for orbits then you are not escaping gravity so it gets considerably easier after you get past the dense atmosphere problem. So, storing and slowly releasing energy makes the most sense; you lose mass while the resistance decreases and then need less energy; in a curve matching with demands-- chemical energy is the best controlled energy source we have.

Somebody should figure what the temp of the projectile would be at such speeds at low altitude and what the shock wave would be like...probably like a bomb going off-- but how big of a bomb?

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news

Re:ball park by mdsolar · 2012-02-08 15:29 · Score: 1

Let's suppose there is 15 lb/square inch of atmosphere to punch through and the projectile is 7.5 tons with 100 square inch profile. Then its surface density is about 150 lb/square inch. So, it needs to shed about 10% of its momentum to get through the air. Not a lot.

Re:light gas gun and RANGE by f97tosc · 2012-02-08 07:54 · Score: 1

Range is also a huge aspect. If they get it to work they will may get a range that is an order of magnitude greater than conventional artillery (~hundreds of miles rather than tens of miles). Which means you can cover two order of magnitudes greater area with a gun and stay rather safe from potential counterattacks. Difficult to underestimate the strategic signficance of this.

It is true that you can get same range with cruise missiles but they are two orders of magnitudes as costly per pop... And can get shot down.

Re:Where's Gordon Freeman when you need him? by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-02-08 07:57 · Score: 1

You think the "speed" referred to is velocity? It's drugs I tell you - high rates of uppers pumped directly in!

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!

Enemy will not Hear It by Roger+W+Moore · 2012-02-08 08:24 · Score: 2

The enemy would be terrified by the noise

Since the speed of sound in air is ~330m/s which is ~750 mph the enemy will not hear it until after it hits at which point it is not the sound which they will be concerned about.

Re:Where's Gordon Freeman when you need him? by SleazyRidr · 2012-02-08 08:38 · Score: 1

A "rate of speed" is more often referred to as acceleration or deceleration.

--
Is 1563649 a prime number?

100-nautical mile range? by llZENll · 2012-02-08 09:10 · Score: 1

What I fail to understand is how you can be accurate with a dumb projectile at 100-nautical miles, especially at sea. Is this simply marketing talk, or can they can they really hit a 100 meter building or other ship from 100 miles away given sea movements and weather?

Re:100-nautical mile range? by Em+Adespoton · 2012-02-08 10:16 · Score: 1

What I fail to understand is how you can be accurate with a dumb projectile at 100-nautical miles, especially at sea. Is this simply marketing talk, or can they can they really hit a 100 meter building or other ship from 100 miles away given sea movements and weather?
The thing's going 5,000mph. That means it takes roughly a minute to get from point A to point B, and has enough momentum and mass to just punch through almost anything that could show up between the two points in that amount of time. Sure, it's going to lose some momentum travelling through spume or rain, or a fishing fleet, but not enough to make any sort of a difference. I'm more worried about what ELSE they hit once the thing comes out the other side of the building or ship, if they've miscalculated the amount of energy they need to deliver.
Re:100-nautical mile range? by X0563511 · 2012-02-08 10:52 · Score: 1

At that speed and mass (5000mph, 16kg) wind etc doesn't really matter as much as it does for traditional munitions. The hardest part is firing it at the right moment, if either target or platform is in motion. Fire control computers can do this, they already do to an extent. Basically the operator says "fire" and the computer starts waiting for the gun to align to the required vector. This computer usually feeds back to either the operator or other systems to bring this into alignment if needed/possible - whether that be vessel steerage commands or a gimbal rotating the gun.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Sir Issac Newton is the deadliest son of a bitch by Shadowruni · 2012-02-08 10:58 · Score: 1

"This, recruits, is a twenty-kilo ferrous slug. Feel the weight! Every five seconds, the main gun of an Everest-class dreadnought accelerates one to one-point-three percent of light-speed. It impacts with the force of a thirty-eight kiloton bomb — that is three times the yield of the city-buster dropped on Hiroshima back on Earth! That means SIR ISAAC NEWTON IS THE DEADLIEST SON OF A BITCH IN SPACE!"

— Gunnery Chief, Mass Effect 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLpgxry542M

--
"Chinese Amazons, power armor, laser swords.... things just meant to be." - Shampoo, A Very Scary Bet

Re:Where's Gordon Freeman when you need him? by inject_hotmail.com · 2012-02-08 11:40 · Score: 1

A "change of rate of speed" is more often referred to as acceleration or deceleration.

FTFY.

What were you talking about, anyway?

How big are the nails? by bryan1945 · 2012-02-08 13:35 · Score: 1

I mean, really, how big a house are they trying to build? Also seems like it would only be good for construction on islands, unless they have those new fancy flying boats.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.

Re:not enough power.... by mug+funky · 2012-02-08 15:17 · Score: 1

i like how you group them both together like that.

Shields becoming a reality? by Adustust · 2012-02-09 02:57 · Score: 1

Perhaps this will finally usher in new research for defensive magnetic fields? What type of energy would be required to actually deflect one of these railshots?

Slashdot Mirror

U.S. Navy Receives First Industry Built Railgun Prototype

213 of 277 comments (clear)